Lauren White

Preliminary Matters
1. The Panel was provided with a Service Bundle of documents, which showed that notice of the hearing was served by email on 01 November 2023 to the Registrant’s address recorded on the Register. The Panel was satisfied that Rule 6 of The Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”) had been complied with as to proper service of notice.

2. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel should proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She referred the Panel to the Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence and made submissions based on the cases of R v Jones/Hayward [2002] UHKL 5 in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords.

3. Ms Collins referred the Panel to the fact that the Registrant had submitted her signed application for Voluntary Removal and had failed to respond to a request to state whether she intended to attend today’s hearing.

4. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel of the factors it should take into account, according to the cases of Jones/Hayward and also GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA 162 CA, when considering its discretion to proceed, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules.

5. The Panel considered that reasonable steps had been taken to send notice of the hearing. Accordingly, it considered that the Registrant should be aware of the hearing today. Although she had not responded to the direct request to indicate her attendance, the Panel took into account that the Registrant has provided her written agreement to voluntary removal, signed on 15 November 2023, and also that the Registrant had indicated in correspondence that she did not intend to attend any substantive fitness to practise hearing, if held.

6. The Panel took into account that it had received no request from the Registrant to postpone or adjourn the hearing. If proceeding today, the Panel acknowledged that it would be considering the Registrant’s request for removal without hearing directly from her. Her request was supported by the HCPC. There was a public interest in the efficient expeditious disposal of allegations.

7. The Panel decided that, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Background
8. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic who had previously been employed by the Rapid Response Medical Group. She had resigned from this employment, during the currency of the employer’s disciplinary proceedings.

9. The HCPC received a self-referral form from the Registrant in respect of a complaint regarding a serious incident relating to patient care. A further referral was later received from the Registrant’s former employer, the HCPC having requested further information.

10. Following investigation, the Investigating Committee of the HCPC on 22 May 2023 determined a case to answer in respect of the following allegation (“the Allegation”):
As a registered Paramedic, PA46091:

1. On 21 February 2022 you did not provide adequate care to Patient A, in that:

a. You did not identify and/or explore potential differential diagnoses for Patient A
b. You did not repeat monitoring of Patient A’s sitting down and lying flat blood pressure.

2. On 21 February 2022 you did not transport Patient A to accident and emergency in an ambulance when it was clinically indicated to do so.

3. On 22 February 2022 you did not transport Patient B to accident and emergency in an ambulance when it was clinically indicated to do so.

4. The matters set out in particulars 1-3 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
5. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.

11. An interim order was imposed on the Registrant’s registration on 22 August 2022 which imposed interim conditions of practice. The interim order has been subsequently reviewed and continued in amended form.

12. The Registrant had initially indicated that she did not wish to continue as ‘a front-line paramedic’ and had a long-term aim to become a first aid trainer, although later stating that she had wished to return to practice. Subsequently, the Registrant indicated having difficulty in obtaining a position as a paramedic, due to the interim conditions of practice.
13. The Registrant provided a response to a notice to admit facts, dated 16 June 2023, admitting the facts of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Allegation. In July 2023, the question of a consensual disposal of the was raised with the HCPC by the Registrant, due to her having made admissions. On 29 August 2023, the Registrant emailed the HCPC and informed it that she did not intend to renew her registration, citing her difficulty in obtaining employment and a decline in her skills as a paramedic.

14. On 05 September 2023, the Registrant indicated a desire to voluntarily leave the Register. On 22 September 2023, the Registrant returned a notice to admit the witness statements obtained by the HCPC, admitting all six witness statements.

15. On 22 September 2023 (although written as ‘2022’) the Registrant returned a Consensual Disposal Request. In the form the Registrant confirmed that she admitted the substance of the Allegation and admitted that her fitness to practise is currently impaired.
16. The Panel was provided with an undated ‘Voluntary Removal Agreement’ (“VRA”) signed by the Registrant on 15 November 2023 and witnessed, and also signed on behalf of the HCPC.

17. The VRA set out in its annexes the Allegation itself, the Registrant’s admission of it and that there were no other fitness to practise matters of which she was aware which could lead to other allegations. The VRA also set out that the HCPC agreed to withdraw the Allegation on the basis of the Registrant’s admission, acceptance of impairment and undertaking not to continue in practice.

18. It was further agreed in the VRA that, should the Registrant apply for restoration, such application would be treated as if the Registrant had been struck off by reason of the Allegation.

19. The Panel was asked, on the basis of the documents provided, to agree to the Consensual Disposal of the case and also consent to the HCPC withdrawing the Allegation.

20. Ms Collins relied on the Skeleton Argument prepared on behalf of the HCPC. She submitted that the Panel should satisfy itself that the Registrant had admitted the allegation, that voluntary removal adequately protected the public and that allowing voluntary removal was not detrimental to the wider public interest.

21. Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant, in the course of her correspondence, had demonstrated the development of some insight and having undertaken required Continuing Professional Development. She submitted that the Panel should permit the HCPC to allow the case to be disposed of by consent.

22. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it should consider the Practice Notes on Consensual Disposal and Discontinuance of Proceedings. He advised that there was a balance to be struck between the public interest and the Registrant’s interests. The Panel should assess the seriousness of the allegations and whether it would undermine public confidence if the matter was not pursued to a hearing.
23. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the cases of Ruscillo v CHRE and NMC [2004] EWCA Civ 1356 and PSA v NMC & X [2018] EWHC 70 (Admin)which made clear the Panel’s duty to be fully informed of the background to the case and bear in mind its obligation to avoid undercharging of allegations.

Decision on Application
24. The Panel considered the seriousness of the Allegation. It considered that the matters involved serious but, subject to the ultimate findings which another panel might make when hearing the case, potentially remediable misconduct. The Panel took into account that, if granted, the voluntary removal of registration would remove the Registrant’s ability to practise as a registered paramedic. Therefore, the risk of any repetition would be dealt with, and the public would be adequately protected by voluntary removal.

25. The Panel took into account that, if it allowed withdrawal of the Allegation and allowed voluntary removal, there would be no formal findings of fact, or impairment. It noted that the Registrant had admitted both the alleged facts and that her fitness to practise is impaired.

26. However, the Panel balanced these matters with the fact that, according to the signed VRA, should the Registrant apply for registration as a paramedic in the future, the Registrant agreed that she would be treated by the HCPC as if she had been struck off the Register. Therefore, any application would involve consideration of the past matters and the Registrant’s admission of past impairment.

27. The Panel next considered whether, in any event, allowing voluntary removal would be detrimental to the wider public interest, and therefore the matter of maintaining public confidence in the profession required the matter to go to a hearing.

28. The Panel concluded that, bearing in mind: (i) its assessment of the seriousness of the Allegations; (ii) the fact that the Panel was satisfied that the public were adequately protected by removal; and (iii) that, in the event of any future application for registration, the full history would be considered, there was no sufficient wider public interest to be satisfied in this case which required a hearing. The Panel was mindful that there is a public interest also in the expeditious disposal of regulatory proceedings and it concluded that the public would be satisfied that the matter had been satisfactorily deal with.

29. The Panel decided that, in the circumstances that the HCPC had received the Registrant’s agreement to request immediate voluntary removal from the Register, it was appropriate to allow the HCPC to withdraw its Allegation. A signed form of consent will be provided.

30. The Panel also decided that it agreed to the Consensual Disposal proposed, on the basis of the signed VRA.

The Panel also decided that it agreed to the Consensual Disposal proposed, on the basis of the signed VRA.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Lauren White